The March 9 ASUO Senate meeting illustrated the many problems within the ASUO. At the meeting, the Senate threatened to veto the Program Finance Committee’s budget because some senators felt as if the PFC’s budget was unfair to student groups. This critique lacks validity, as the Senate recommended the 2.5 percent benchmark to which the PFC attempted to adhere.
The Senate shied away from vetoing the budget, as this would have dealt a devastating blow to PFC members, who would have to scramble to reorganize the budget in only one week, which is impossible. Therefore, even if the Senate’s complaint were valid, the Senate still wouldn’t have much recourse: The Senate could veto the budget, thus sending the PFC back to the drawing board. But this would only happen in worst-case scenario situations. In all other situations, the Senate would feel compelled to rubber stamp the budget.
But if the ASUO actually has a series of checks and balances, then this should not be the case. The Senate should be allowed to veto the PFC’s budget. But under the current model, that is technically possible yet also unfeasible. Perhaps the budget model needs reformation.
This would be unpopular, but it might streamline the process.
Perhaps many student groups could write budgets every two years instead of every year. Many budgets remain practically the same every year, with increases intended to counteract inflation.
This would require some groups to plan ahead better than they currently do. Some student groups might complain that it would tie their hands and prevent them from dealing with extenuating circumstances. Yet many groups are already bad at budgeting under the current system, and they often receive assistance from the Senate’s surplus account. Last year, for example, the Multicultural Center received $6,000 for a speaker series after quickly spending all of its budgeted speaker series money.
Remaining fiscally responsible, however, is not impossible, and for many groups it would not be difficult to budget for two years in the future. If a group had a circumstance in which it needed more money for a special event or speaker, it could still attempt to get surplus fees.
Staggering the years during which student groups go before the PFC would mean the PFC would see fewer groups each year, thus giving the Senate a better opportunity to act as a check if necessary.
If student government does not want to be perceived as simply a rubber stamp, it should attempt to reform the budget system in order to allow for vetoes. Clearly, this would not necessarily benefit the PFC, but it would benefit our supposedly democratic system of checks and balances.